Military and Int Chiefs critise secret Iraq Inquiry.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BuggerAll, Jun 16, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    The 0030 BBC R4 news has just reported that military and intelligence chiefs have critised the idiots decision to hold the Iraq Inquiry in secret. Unfortunately I cannot find any links. I'm sure there will be more in the morning.

    I'm glad this has come out because it makes me puke to hear him and his cronies gobbing off and claiming the support of Generals etc when they have no right to contradict him.
  2. There have been incidences in history where good intelligence has been ignored because it was not believed and there have equally been incidences of bad intelligence being believed but in those cases the belief had been honest and genuine.
    The 2Bs wanted to invade Iraq and I believe that they beefed-up the intelligence to fit their desired scenario. The reason they got away with it was because there were enough people in Parliament and in the general population who were happy to believe the souped-up intelligence and whom were convinced that Sadam had WMD.
    The trouble is that beefing-up reports to fit a desired scenario can be explained away as being mislead or drawing the wrong conclusions from the available int. I doubt that heads will roll if it just appears that Blair was mislead by the available int and the emphasis being placed upon it by our allies. If it turns out that they went entirely on the American slant or that they overplayed emphasis for their own ends then that is anoyther matter. We are our own country so any PM who went to war based solely on circumspect US Int has betrayed our Nation. Equally if Blair caused the int, which pointed at not invading, to be altered or had false emphasis deliberately placed upon it then he is guilty of sending our troops to their death for self-advancement. If that were the case then lone patrolling of Hellmond with a catapult might be a fitting atonement.
  3. You raise an interesting point Hackle. Whatever the reasons for going to war we were not adequately prepared for that war. It would appear that we were blindly following Bush's lead in a war that had no real timetable. There was no immediate threat or danger of deployment by Iraqi troops so why didn't the Government wait until the Army was better equipped?
    This surely harks back to the dancing to Bush's tune scenario where Blair offered up British lives without a thought as to the outcome or consequences.

  4. And there you have it in a nutshell. After 12 months(more like 18 I reckon)and God knows how many millions of pounds, the conclusions of the "far reaching and completely independant"inquiry, which by the way has no-one with any military experience on it!!!will find that no-one is to blame for going to war and that St Tony of Bliar will have "been mislead by intelligence reports from undisclosed sources"and only went to war because "due to the information available, he acted in the best interest of the free world"
    Whoever the armed forces minister is when the report is published will be wheeled out and explain at the press conference that "lessons will be learned" and "although mistakes were made, no one is at fault"
    No mention will be made of equipment. No mention will be made about the lack of post war planning.And as an after thought someone will mention"our brave troops, who continue to do a magnificent job"

    Cynic....... me..........never.
  5. The announcement that an inquiry into the Iraq War will be held in private and its results will only be released after the next general election is a political ploy designed to shift blame for the fiasco away from the politicians who carry full responsibility for the web of lies and deception which led to the conflict.

    The inquiry announced by Gordon Brown today will not “apportion blame” either – despite the catastrophic decision to go to war against a nation which presented no threat to Britain. This is most certainly a war crime as established by the precedent set by the Nuremburg Military Tribunal (NMT) war crimes trials.

    While Mr Brown has a vested interest in ensuring that he has no blame, it is devious of the Conservatives to now pretend outrage. In the period leading directly up to the outbreak of the conflict in March 2003, the Tories criticised the Labour government for “dragging its feet” on the matter and taking too long to launch military action against Iraq. The Tory leader of the time, Iain Duncan-Smith and his top leadership – which included David Cameron – were all enthusiastic supporters of the invasion, and thus all bear equal responsibility for the deaths and suffering it caused.

    The blood is on Tory and Labour hands equally, and they should all be held equally accountable for these crimes, no matter what the outcome of this latest cover-up inquiry.
  6. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Marktime: the issue I have with your point about kit is that we could have been adequately prepared if we had started making proper preparations before Jan 03.

    I was still attending briefings for EX ULAN EAGLE in late '02. The prep for this and other EX was being used as a cover for prep for the Iraq invasion. Not a 'ruse de guerre' to fool the Iraqis but to fool the real Enemy - the MoD who would not allow any preparations as we had not decided to go.

    A friend of mine made the decision to charter huge numbers of containers, again ostensibly for EX. If the war had not happened he would have been crucified for wasting millions - as it was his actions saved millions and ensured the availability of containers. Contrast the moral courage of a TA Major on FTRS with the craven skulking of TCH and Blair.

    On the issue of WMD - I think this is a red herring. I don't believe the reasons for invading Iraq ever really had much to do with WMD although this was used to 'sell' the war. I believe Blair when he says that Saddam was 'uniquely eveil' and that the Iraqi peoeple deserved to be rid of him. (Unfortunately he is not as unique as I'd like. Kim and Mugabe for a start)

    I also believe there were genuine wider strategic hopes for the middle east region. Successfully rifdding the world of Saddam and setting up a vibrant pluralist democracy had it succeeded could have been a catalyst for better things in the ME. It almost started - Qaddafi/Libya certainly read the writing on the walls. A decent Iraq may have offered a chance to clean up Saudi and so on.

    There is also oil. You cannot discuss the ME without mentioning oil. Without oil the ME would not be so important. The war was not started to 'steal the oil' or to ensure large profits for oil companies in the way that Guardianista think. That idea is just fatuous. If that was the case we could have made friends with Saddam paid him for the oil made lots of profits and saved the costs of the invasion. It was about trying to bring those assets into the democratic fold where the profits could eb used fro the betterment of the Iraqi people and ultimately for making Iraq and the wider ME into a useful friend a trading partner.

    Were we lied to about this. Not really it was all out there but we certainly misdirected as to what was important and what was not. Had it worked we would all be praising Bush/Blair for their moral courage for pressing on in face of considerable opposition. Therefore I think one of the things that the Inquiry should look at is whether the plan shopuld ahve worked or whether it was hopelessly over optimistic from the start.
  7. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    A very good post, IMHO. My own feeling was that the WMD were only ever a pretext which would allow the US (and us) to go to war in an attempt to 'realign' the middle east towards democratic pluralism. There will never be anything approaching stability in the region and more widely whilst the majority of the worlds oil supplies are controlled by a mixture of Fascistic despots and feudal oligarchies at war with each other and with the rest of the world.

    The significant problems were with the hurried execution of the plan and the absence of planning for post-invasion reconstruction which allowed a manageable situation in Iraq to become largely unmanageable over the course of the summer and autumn of 2003; and with the fact that information campaign, dependent on the expectation of finding WMDs, turned out to be completely wrong.

    For what it's worth, my view is that the enquiry needs to focus mainly on the failure to prepare a worthwhile post conflict plan because that is what led to the insurgency getting a grip in Iraq. The fact is that if we (Brits and Americans) had done better in 2003 we wouldn't have created the problems which dogged us for the next six years.
  8. A 100% first class post.
  9. I agree that marktime's recent post has great value. Does anyone know where evidence must be submitted to the Iraq Inquiry?
  10. Real evidence or 'war crimes' ramblings?
  11. I'm referring to serious, factual evidence that some users of this website can and might wish to provide. The Chairman of the Iraq Inquiry is more than capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
  12. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer


    Why not write to the chairman of the Inquiry with a precise of your evidence. I'm sure if you addressed it c/o No 10 it would get to him. I'd send it recorded if I was you. You could even put a self addressed envelope to ask for an acknowledgment. If you don't get it complain to your MP.

    As you say he can sort out the wheat from the chaff.